compare_rule_versions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the main behavioral characteristics. The description adds a small detail about comparing by article units but does not mention side effects, permissions, or other behavioral aspects beyond what annotations already provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences—with the primary action stated first and the key optional behavior immediately following. No unnecessary words or redundant explanations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a read-only comparison tool, especially since an output schema exists (though not shown) to define the return structure. It lacks only a brief note about the nature of the comparison result (e.g., 'returns a list of changed articles'), but this is not a critical gap given the scope.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with all six parameters individually described. The tool description adds a minor clarification about 'to_history_id' omission, but otherwise relies on the schema. Given complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('compare'), resource (two HISTORYs of the same regulation), and scope (at the article level). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_rule_history or get_rule_content by focusing on the comparison of two versions, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on the key optional parameter 'to_history_id' (if omitted, compares with the latest revision), which is essential for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, leaving some implicit inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.